A Decade of Sundance Films, but Where are the Masterpieces?

As indie film guru John Pierson said in a recent article in Premiere,the Sundance Film Festival is a “made event.” While that is indeed true,the hoopla encompassing the fest – fueled by media and industry playerswho deem it by and far the most significant and substantial Americanindie film event of the year – does not hide the fact that no matterwhat the profile of any festival, its films speak for themselves. Andwhen looking back at some of the most “buzzed” about films that haveplayed at Sundance, one will realize that not only has a masterpiecenever been screened, but the festival’s overall quality – compared tothe top tier of Hollywood and world cinema screened at internationalfestivals such as Cannes and Venice, simply, in fact, doesn’t compare.While the popularity of Sundance proves that the American independentfilm scene is thriving in terms of the number of films produced and thevast audience willing to see those films – the overall quality of thefilms makes Sundance seem like the all star game of a minor league filmbiz.

The above paragraph may be an upsetting one to some, and don’t get mewrong, worthy films – even near great ones – have played at Sundance inthe past. Some come to mind instantaneously – “Sex, Lies and Videotape,”“Blood Simple,” “Hoop Dreams,” even Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs”have rocketed out of the festival and settled themselves into thediscriminating pantheon of contemporary film lore. But will any of thosefilms ever earn classic status? No way – and we’re just talking aboutthe festival’s standout fair. What about award winners from the past fewyears: “The Brother’s McMullen,” “Public Access,” “Slam,” “The SpitfireGrill,” etc. These films were lauded as significant films at the fest –and when truly looking at their merits, one comes to the conclusion thatthey’re sloppy, manipulative works whose praise is simply undeserved.

So what gives Sundance its reputation as the premier non-Hollywood NorthAmerican film event? For audiences looking for a festival that willoffer them cinema that often touches on art, they’d be much betterserved attending high-brow, non-buyers market festivals such as the onesin New York City and Telluride. Even when talking strictly acquisitions(which, obviously, is what really matters at Sundance) – productioncompany execs and acquisitions staff probably prefer the Toronto filmfestival where the vast lineup is absolutely more eclectic, exciting,and artful.

Maybe it’s the true festive nature of Sundance – a mountain side party,full of creative folks and their providers praising themselves for theirintegrity and humbleness while relishing in the possibility of excessand a monumentally lucrative financial future. It occurs in a small skitown, smack dab in the middle of winter, in a place otherwise far awayfrom the psychological vibe of Hollywood. For ten days, the industry’splayers and wannabes share the same crowded sidewalks, restaurants, andscreening facilities, get interviewed by hip television programs andvery publicly commune as supporters of art made out of theestablishment. Dreams come true at Sundance – young film geeks becomeplayers over night, as the brothers Weinstein and their extendedbrethren make a splash and cause a party by bestowing millions of buckson the most traditional, lacking in guts – the most Hollywood inspired –“independent” filmmakers.

Why the rant, you ask? Because of frustration – because of anindependent film scene that – at events like Sundance – makes it veryclear that it’s not living up to its possibilities. How many films fromlast year’s fest that found distribution were worth seeing? If you askme, only two. There was Vincent Gallo’s sardonically beautiful “Buffalo66″ and Darren Aronofsky’s “Pi” – which was not really a good film, butwas undeniably made by an artist, which is surly a rare occurrence thesedays. Other than that there was the overbearing and melodramatic “SmokeSignals,” the well shot, well acted but obvious and pretentious “HighArt,” and the cutesy and mediocre “Next Stop Wonderland.”

Obviously, Sundance has showcased some pretty interesting, worthy, andartistically ambitious films in the past. The best of them, films like“Safe,” “Poison,” “Fresh,” “Hoop Dreams,” “What Happened Was,” “BloodSimple,” “Reservoir Dogs, “Spanking the Monkey,” “Ruby in Paradise,” andthis year’s “The Blair Witch Project,” are deserving of mention in adiscussion about the most interesting contemporary American films. Butthe festival’s been around since the mid-eighties, and these gems areunusual amongst the mediocrity of the fest’s usual offerings.Independently financed art is an exciting thing, and a showcase for thatwork is crucial. But when that showcase ends up only fueling hype aroundan artistic movement rather than inspiring an increase in the actual artof the movement, there’s a problem.

[Danny Lorber has joined the indieWIRE team to write a weekly review columnfor iPOP: indieWIRE’s Movie Magazine. A writer based in Los Angeles, Dannyhas been a contributing film critic for The Boston Phoenix and The LosAngeles New Times. He has also served as a freelance film critic and filmreporter for Daily Variety, and currently serves as one of the associateprogrammers of the Los Angeles Independent Film Festival.]